In current psychoanalytical perspectives, one of the central axes of development at adolescence is envisaged as a subjective process of appropriation which can only be conceived as a second period of preliminary deconstruction. Deconstruction is often experienced by adults, and secondarily by the adolescents themselves as violent, although this violence, which is deeply structuring, constitutes a condition of psychic growth and authentic personal development above all else. In fact, it responds to the violence which is inherent in the primary narcissistic contract. The distinction between deconstruction and destructiveness constitutes a condition of appreciation of the dynamics at play during adolescence which preserve their potential for vitality and creativity as well as they can. From this point of view, on the level of psychoanalytical theory, it is important to dispel the confusion introduced by Freud beginning in 1920 between the processes of bonding-debonding, an inherent part of development and of thought, from the range of destructiveness. The movements of deconstruction at adolescence concern the body, the connections to parents and the modalities of relationships to social structures. They can be hindered by the limitations linked to capacities specific to adolescence as well as to different forms of taboos. They can also deteriorate in the direction of destructiveness. In this respect, the differentiation between movements of deconstruction which attempt to transform objectal links and those which aim to abolish them is important on the clinical and therapeutic levels. This difference is illustrated by the comparison between two films dealing with adolescent revolt, Rebel without a Cause and Into the Wild.
Source